This case is before the Authority on a negotiability
appeal filed by the Union under section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service
Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute). It concerns the negotiability
of three proposals.(1)

The proposals relate to an Agency requirement that all
uniformed employees purchase and affix "bicentennial" patches on their
uniforms. Supplemental Submission at 2. Proposals 1 and 2 would "require the
Agency to supply an unlimited number of patches at no cost to employees."
Id. Proposal 3 would require the Agency to bear the cost of affixing the
patches to existing uniforms. For the reasons set forth below, we find the
proposals to be within the duty to bargain.

II. Proposals

Proposal 1

There will be no set limit on the number of
[bicentennial] patches which can be purchased separately from the uniform
contractor.

Proposal 2

No charge will be assessed for the purchase of
patches.

Proposal 3

Customs will reimburse all employees for [the] cost of
affixing patches to existing uniforms.

III. Positions of the Parties

A. The Union

The Union argues that the proposals constitute
appropriate arrangements under section 7106(b)(3) of the Statute. The Union
asserts that the proposals are intended to ameliorate the adverse effects of
the Agency's decision to require uniformed employees to affix bicentennial
patches to their uniforms. Supplemental Submission at 1.

The Union asserts that the Agency requires employees to
affix a patch to the right shoulder of each shirt and jacket. Because each
patch costs $2.50 and employees own numerous shirts and jackets, the Union
argues that the Agency's decision to require employees to wear patches is
costly. The Union asserts that in many instances the employees are required to
spend personal funds for patches. According to the Union, "[t]he annual uniform
allowance of $250.00 is inadequate to replace worn or damaged garments and to
supplement an employee'[s] wardrobe with required clothing." Id. at 3.
The Union adds that employees could be subject to disciplinary action if they
do not have patches on their uniforms. Id.

Additionally, the Union asserts that bicentennial patches
are for the benefit of the Government and provide no benefit to the employee.
The patches are part of the prescribed uniform. Therefore, the Union argues
that public funds can be used to purchase and affix the patches to the
uniforms. Id. at 4.

B. The Agency

The Agency did not respond to the Union's request for an
allegation of nonnegotiability. Petition for Review at 1. In addition, the
Agency did not submit a statement of position.

IV. Analysis and Conclusions

The issue in this case is whether the Agency is obligated
to bargain on proposals which would require the Agency to pay for bicentennial
patches and the cost of putting the patches on employees' uniforms. We find
that the proposals are within the duty to bargain.

Under the Statute, an agency is obligated to bargain over
proposals concerning conditions of employment provided that the proposals do
not violate law, Government-wide regulation, or an agency regulation for which
there is a compelling need. SeeNational Treasury Employees Union and
Department of the Treasury, U.S. Customs Service, 21 FLRA 6, 10 (1986),
affirmed sub nom.Department of the Treasury, U.S. Customs Service v.
FLRA, 836 F.2d 1381 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Here, the Agency does not allege that
the proposals do not concern conditions of employment or that they are outside
the duty to bargain. Moreover, we find no basis on which to conclude that the
proposals are nonnegotiable. We note that the Agency has not alleged, and we do
not find, that the proposals interfere with the exercise of any management
rights. Therefore, we find the proposals to be within the Agency's duty to
bargain.(2)

We note that 5 U.S.C. § 5901(a) limits the amount of
money that Government agencies, whose employees are required by law or
regulation to wear a prescribed uniform, can spend for uniforms. 5 U.S.C.
§ 5901(a) authorizes agencies to furnish employees with uniforms at a cost
not to exceed $125.00 a year or to pay each employee an allowance for uniforms
not to exceed $125.00 annually. However, some agencies are exempt from the
$125.00 limit. SeeUnited States Department of Justice, Immigration
and Naturalization Service and American Federation of Government Employees,
National Border Patrol Council, 31 FLRA 1123, 1134 (1988) (finding
the Immigration and Naturalization Service was exempt from the $125.00 limit in
section 5901 for Fiscal Year 1988).

The U.S. Customs Service is an agency which Congress
exempted from the $125.00 limit on uniform allowances in section 5901 for
Fiscal Years 1989 and 1990. See 1989 Treasury, Postal Service and
General Government Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 100-440, 1988 U.S. Code
Cong. & Admin. News (102 Stat.) 1721, 1723; and 1990 Treasury, Postal
Service and General Government Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 101-136, 1989
U.S. Cod